get_template

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds value by specifying 'field metadata' as returned content, but omits error behavior (e.g., what happens if template_id is invalid) or cache characteristics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely efficient at 7 words. Front-loaded with verb 'Fetch'. Every word earns its place: 'single' distinguishes from list operations, 'field metadata' clarifies what the definition contains. No redundant or filler text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Adequate for a simple read operation with one parameter and good annotations. The description covers the core behavior and hints at return value content ('field metadata'). Could improve by noting error cases (e.g., template not found) since no output schema exists.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the schema fully documents the input requirements. The description provides no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema completeness, meeting the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses specific verb 'Fetch' with clear resource 'template definition' and scope 'single'. The phrase 'field metadata' distinguishes it from list_templates (which likely returns summary data) and 'Fetch' distinguishes it from fill_template (which implies mutation).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The word 'single' implies this requires a specific ID versus browsing with list_templates, but there are no explicit when-to-use guidelines or named alternatives. The agent must infer the workflow from the sibling tool names and the parameter requirement.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.